Shoopak v. U.S. Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1959 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y.S.2d 112,17 Misc.2d 201 |
| Parties | Neal SHOOPAK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and Tire Masters, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Turkewitz & Tessel, New York City, for plaintiff.
Arthur, Dry & Dole, New York City, for defendant United States Rubber co.
Defendant United States Rubber Company makes this motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action of the complaint upon the ground that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when a tire allegedly manufactured by the moving defendant exploded while he was inflating and attempting to mount the same upon the wheel of an automobile of a customer.
The first cause of action is predicated upon the negligence of the defendant. It contains allegations that defendant manufactured a tire with 'worn, weak and defective bead wires, improperly inserted and wound in the tire.' Plaintiff also alleges that 'the bead of said tire was embedded, enclosed, packaged, sealed and covered within said tire when said tire was manufactured' and 'that said tire was designed and intended to contain large volumes of air under great pressure and was inherently dangerous to life and limb if manufactured, or sold, or distributed * * * with a defective bead and bead wires.'
The court must assume the truth of these allegations upon a motion of this nature. Under the circumstances a sufficient cause of action in negligence for a latent defect is alleged against the manufacturer. See, Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N.Y. 227, 140 N.E. 571; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A.1916F, 696; Statler v. George A. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063; Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N.Y. 156, 84 N.E. 956, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 726.
The second cause of action repeats the allegations of the first except as to the negligence and seeks a recovery upon the theory of a breach of warranty. The rule is fundamental that no recovery may be had for breach of warranty in the absence of privity. Although the doctrine of privity has been extended to permit recovery when the injurious article has been purchased by an agent for the injured party the doctrine has not been completely extinguished so as to enable a recovery under the circumstances herein where no contractual relation exists between the parties or their agents. See Bowman v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deeves v. Fabric Fire Hose Co.
...or agent of the buyer, may not be recompensed by suit against the seller based on breach of the contract, (Shoopak v. United States Rubber Co., 17 Misc.2d 201, 183 N.Y.S.2d 112, affirmed 10 A.D.2d 978, 202 N.Y.S.2d 250; Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Humm, Sup., 48 N.Y.S.2d 875, a......
-
Shoopak v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...to constitute a cause of action. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. See also 17 Misc.2d 201, 183 N.Y.S.2d 112. NOLAN, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, PETTE and BRENNAN, JJ., ...
-
Shoopak v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...of action and with breach of warranty in the second. The second cause of action was dismissed on motion prior to the trial (17 Misc.2d 201, 183 N.Y.S.2d 112, affd. 10 A.D.2d 978, 202 N.Y.S.2d 250). The defendant Tire Masters, Inc. was charged in the third cause of action with a breach of im......
- Mazel Associates, Inc. v. Bogdan